Overview
Title
Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020-2021 Commercial Closure for Spanish Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is temporarily stopping people from catching a fish called Spanish mackerel in a certain ocean area because they’ve caught almost as much as they’re allowed. Starting February 3, 2021, fishermen can still keep some for fun, but they can’t sell them, and this rule helps make sure there are enough fish in the sea.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is closing the Atlantic southern zone for commercial Spanish mackerel fishing starting February 3, 2021, as the fishing quota is expected to be reached by then. This closure aims to protect the Spanish mackerel resources, and it will last until February 28, 2021. During this period, those with permits can still keep Spanish mackerel under recreational limits, but selling or purchasing these fish from the southern zone is prohibited unless they were already harvested and stored before the closure. The commercial fishing for Spanish mackerel will reopen on March 1, 2021.
Abstract
NMFS closes the Atlantic southern zone for commercial Spanish mackerel in or from the Atlantic exclusive economic zone. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone will be reached by February 3, 2021. Therefore, NMFS closes the Atlantic southern zone to commercial harvest of Spanish mackerel on February 3, 2021. This closure is necessary to protect the Spanish mackerel resource in the Atlantic.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question relates to a temporary closure imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on commercial Spanish mackerel fishing in the Atlantic southern zone. This closure is scheduled to take effect on February 3, 2021, and will remain until February 28, 2021. The decision was made as the NMFS anticipates that the commercial fishing quota for this marine resource will be reached by the specified date. This closure primarily serves to protect the Spanish mackerel population in the Atlantic and will momentarily halt commercial harvesting practices in the specified area.
General Summary
This rule, released by the NMFS, a subdivision of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is a temporary action aiming to ensure the sustainability of the Spanish mackerel fishery by preemptively closing the Atlantic southern zone to commercial harvest. This region covers federal waters off the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and the eastern part of Florida. In managing this coastal migratory pelagic resource, the NMFS has collaborated with the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils as stipulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the key concerns regarding this document is its accessibility to the general public. The text contains technical jargon and specific regulatory references that may not be easily understood by those unfamiliar with legislative texts or fishery management procedures. References to codes such as 50 CFR parts could deter readers who lack access to or understanding of these specific legal documents.
Moreover, the rationale behind waiving prior notice and public comment could be contentious. While the document explains that swift action is necessary to prevent the quota from being exceeded, some may perceive this as sidelining public discourse, which is an essential component of democratic governance.
Impact on the Public
The explicit purpose of this closure is to prevent the overfishing of Spanish mackerel in a specific area to preserve the species and maintain ecological balance, which is a matter of public interest. The closure may affect seafood availability and prices in markets that rely predominantly on this region for their mackerel supply. However, consumers can still access Spanish mackerel harvested and sold before the closure or sourced from other regions.
Impact on Stakeholders
Fishers and the Fishing Industry: Commercial fishers operating in the southern zone will face an immediate halt in their activities, which may lead to financial losses. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that fishers with valid permits can still engage in recreational fishing under specified limits. Additionally, they may face challenges in the market as selling or purchasing fish harvested during the closure period is prohibited.
Environmental Advocates: These stakeholders may view the closure favorably as it reflects a governmental commitment to protecting marine resources and ensuring sustainable fishing practices.
Recreational Fishers: Those interested in recreational fishing might benefit from having the ongoing opportunity to fish within the allowable limits. This sector is not restricted by the closures applying to commercial operations.
In conclusion, while the document's aim is clearly conservation-focused, the execution and communication of this action could be improved to ensure transparency and maintain public trust. Evaluating the balance between resource preservation and economic impacts remains a crucial ongoing effort for the involved agencies.
Issues
• The document does not contain information about spending, therefore potential wasteful spending issues cannot be assessed.
• The document does not mention any specific organizations or individuals that might favor particular interests, which is an area typically audited for bias.
• The description of the geographical boundaries of the southern zone could be clearer for lay readers by using simpler language or additional explanatory maps or tools.
• The explanation of regulations, such as those in 50 CFR parts, might be overly complex for readers unfamiliar with legal terminology or the specific parts of the U.S. Code they reference.
• Some technical details and statutory references (e.g., 50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)) could be difficult to understand without access to those specific legal texts, possibly leaving readers uninformed of crucial details unless they research further.
• The rationale for waiving prior notice and public comment, although explained, might still be perceived as dismissing public engagement without fully justifying why public interest would be contrary to such notice.